If they have reconciliation, why do they need this?

This lets Obama himself directly write the bill and use it multiple times a year.

This is just a talking point for midterms, there’s no way he can expect this bill to get past a Republican filibuster (probably joined by a fair number of Democrats). Let’s see, the President, House Clerk and the House Budget Committee chair are each given the opportunity to amend the Appropriations Bill, but no US Senator is given the same right. Unless the US Senate is collectively cooking meth (and only a small minority is)… this will never pass.

It is amusing to see the White House stick to the program by forcing the House to walk the plank every time… the Senate would never have to cast a vote on a rescission package unless and until the House jumps first.

Obama is securing his own future, not the nation’s.

The idea of the President writing bills, then forcing Congress to vote on them, is highly troubling. Should Congress become nothing more than a veto point on laws written by the President?

Heh. Well the upside to this is that it simply codifies the existing condition of the Legislature. The downside is of course that this is the existing condition of the Legislature.

Congress has spent several decades literally thrusting authority toward the Executive. It’s hard to call it a Presidential power-grab, when Congress enthusiastically abdicates all its responsibilities. As Andrew Bacevich said in his interview with Bill Moyers, “The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress.”

That’s it. That’s all they’re there for. It’s a sham democracy, full stop.

Maybe we should start a petition to send to all our Representatives and Senators scolding them for their fealty to the President. You know, really shake things up and send them a strong message that they can’t just toss in the wastebasket!

Obama has fashioned, through diligent effort, himself into a Stepin Fetchit for the Divine Right of Money. He fully expects to be rewarded appropriately.

One imagines that he, Bill Clinton, and “Poppy” will get on well together.

(Obama, who claimed to do “good”, will do very well for himself, indeed. He already sees himself as the “in-demand” elder states-bi-partisan-man, occupying the “pragmatic” middle …)

DW

[modnote: surely it was not your intent, but the "Steppin Fetchit" reference comes off as racist ]

Legislation that only passes one House of Congress, the U.S. Senate, is not created through a democratic process.

He fully expects to be rewarded appropriately.

Hence my opinion that he’s working to secure a future for himself, rather than us.

All Hail and submit to Dear Leader.

modnote: surely it was not your intent, but the “Steppin Fetchit” reference comes off as racist

Yeah, I thought that too. I’m glad it wasn’t just me. I’m sure DW didn’t mean it that way though.

Have we tracked down the psycho-history of where this face of Eve-Bama emerged? When did Obama’s Ayn Rand personality manifest? When he was teaching at UChicago?

Atmospherics aside, Obama is John McCain and George Bush. He is a Blue Dog status quo corporatist. Would someone like that do something like this? You bet. Would a real Democrat do this? Never. I have been an independent all my life. But I have to say, isn’t it time Democrats took back their own party before they ask people like me to support it?

Atmospherics aside, Obama is John McCain and George Bush.

Yep. I’m going to hate whichever GOP tool they get to replace Orahma with but I doubt I’ll notice much difference in my life, if any.

This sounds like fascism to me. What happened to separation of powers? Obama
is extremely dangerous. He’s more right wing that Bush. The bailout, pressuring Merkel in Germany, and the oil spill. We must impeach him immediately.

You do know the history, then, mod?

Steppin was a “creation”.

If the term is demeaning, and it surely is, what do we make of the fact that this nation had the courage, the human understanding, to elect a person of color, then what does it mean that such a person has not only continued the deceits of his predecessor and enlarged upon them UNLESS there was intent AND collusion to do so.

The remark was not meant racially, merely humanly, as it applies to the rest of us.

DW

The current Democratic Party of Obama and Rahm will have to be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up.

Imagine how happy this would make Pete Peterson and his ilk.

Orahma

I’ve never been comfortable with this kind of misdirection, or insinuation that the President is somehow a captive of his executive appointments.

It bugged me when people did with with Bush and Cheney, and it’s not any more realistic with Obama and Rahm. The reality is that, despite how despicable some appointee is, and how much latitude or control they appear to have, the buck stops at the chief executive. The President. It’s completely impossible for him to be captive to his subordinates. If he doesn’t like what they’re doing, then he can get rid of them in the blink of an eye.

I say we start MARKETING now, since that is all that works with the brain-dead American electorate. Obama was one big MARKETING job, and who says someone else can’t do what they did!

Let’s find the best Progressive we can, and run them. Say Feingold, or Sherrod Brown or Franken. Then, let’s use music (yes music) to do it, a la Woodstock.

Seriously, aren’t there some serious bands and musicians who would start supporting a Third Party now (and I mean NOW), after this Banking/Insurance/Environmental sell-out? And you would have the youth vote, the baby-boomer vote, and everything in-between hearing about the Third Party at concerts for the next 2-1/2 years.

We can call it The Transparency Party, and list the proposed Cabinet, so we don’t have any surprises after the election. After this bait-and-switch, do you really think people wouldn’t listen to that?

Everybody.
Bow to The King.
Bow to The Corporation.

I think Obummer is doing all he can to destroy the democratic party. Maybe after he has destroyed the party we can have a real liberal party. But I dream, been dreaming for over twenty years, guess I won’t live long enough to see a truly liberal party.

You’ve got a horse and a half with those ideas, dhfsfc.

Good on ya!

Time to say what we are for, in clear terms that others will, often happily, agree with.

But first, we have to agree on those coherent “ideas” about the “kind” of
world WE want.

DW

Absolutely. He’s goading the country for impeachment.
His corporate partnership in criminal negligence of the Gulf Coast is without question an impeachable offense on multiple counts.

I think that’s the easy part! Seriously.

If we elect an honest Progressive, we’re half-way there!

Well, I certainly didn’t want to give the impression that I believe he is being manipulated against his will. In fact, I’ve always argued to the contrary. I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. Still, to me it’s just something I came up with to indicate that I find their philosophies indistinguishable and I used it first prior to Obama becoming president or hiring Rahm Emanuel. In point of fact, I used it in 2006 when he was supporting LIEberman after Lamant won the primary in Connecticut. It was a reference to supporting a less progressive candidate in favor of one who behaves more Republican.

I think Obummer doesn’t give a hoot about party’s one way or the other.

He’s a committed corporatist, and that’s his ideology.

This is a breathtaking power grab. Whose idea was this? Obama’s? Pete Peterson’s? Ben Bernake’s? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ah gotcha. That makes sense. It’s just hard to tell with all the Rahm bashing that goes on around here. Not that he’s not worthy of bashing, just that it should never be done divorced from the reason he has any influence at all. The President.

:-)

All we need now is to elect a religious zealot to the POTUS and we can be just like Iran. Chistianofascism for all!

If you find me an honest politician, I’ll give you my life’s income.

At some point or another, they’re all compromised. That’s just how it works.

It may well be easy and I think we would all enjoy laying out, in some specific detail, the human-centered but LIFE appreciating world and global human society we must envision and be able to describe it to others, so well that they can, almost, “taste” it.

People will want that future, if they can see themselves, their children, their families and their friends living decent, reasonable and interesting lives in that, better AND obtainable, world.

But we must begin to lay out the “vision” or others, more “$elf-interested, than ourselves will do so. (They already, are …)

DW

Jon, you’re missing the whole point. In order for obamarahma to play 11 dimensional chess and accomplish all of the progressive things that he implied in his campaign, he needs to consolidate executive power. We the people want and need an all powerful leader who will tell us what we are allowed to do within the rules laid down by the big corps. If a big corp says that the government cannot interfere with what the corp is doing, the government is bound no matter how much it hurts the nation.

I conflate obama and rahm because I want to remind people of the real face of what obamarahma is doing. rahm shows how the WH is actually operating, and it is not in the cool, thoughtful, intellectual demeanor projected by obama alone. obamarahma comes out of milton friedman’s shock doctrine so ably portrayed by Naomi Klein. The plan is to drive the US into being another Haiti, with a rich class protected by the mercenaries (why do you think they were able to become so strong) and the rest of us who will have no safety net and no way to get out of the morass (see catfood commission and the end of unions and real public education).

Obama is a true beliver in private enterprise over public good.
In his heart of hearts, he believes nothing’s worth doing unless private enterprise can benefit.

Look at HCR, the stimulus, jobs creation, and mortgage relief to name a few.
Everthing is filtered through some kind of private enterprise.
This costs us more in the end and serves nobody but private enterprise.

He refuses to even do an FDR like works program.
His idea of a jobs creation plan was giving businesses a
tax credit if they hire people.

You can’t get someone to change something they can’t see.
Obama is so far removed from the reality on the ground,
he’ll never do anything for the greater good.
It’s just not in him.

Can we start being very vocal about class warfare? Can we help bring up this all encompassing reality into the main stream?

If Obama, by hook or crook, gets this little thing then all of the “suggestions” favored by Team Obama in the guise of Bowles and Simpson will almost certainly be a done deal.

Democrats said Simpson and Bowles are uniquely equipped to blaze a path out of the fiscal wilderness — and to forge bipartisan consensus on a plan likely to require painful tax increases as well as program cuts.

Except of course that they didn’t have a mechanism to push the goals onto the Congress. This is that mechanism.

Of course, if the Rs later take the Presidency they can complete whatever is not accomplished. The only thing cut will be social spending because welfare to the banks and military spending will clearly be too politically controversial.

I used to say we needed a new Roosevelt and ended up with another Hoover. Right now I’d settle for another Hoover.

Political consideration is Obama’s be-all and end-all.

He has to parlay his political “acumen” into real dollars, sooner rather than the later he had calculated originally.

He cannot, for example, “take over” the attempt to seal “the” leak, because he would lose “political capital” and worse, he imagines he would “own” the disaster.

Well, he already does.

But, one notes, that “Deciderator” Bush is in much demand at Chamber of Commerce venues, well-paying venues, across the land.

Really, “the” spill and the “people” are SUCH nuisances to well-laid plans, it’s a shame …

DW

The first four words says it all… (Obama Seeks More Power)

That is all he has ever been about.

Absolutely, he’s looking for as much cash as possible.
He does own this thing, hook, line and sinker.

But, his priority will always be corporate interests over the public.

Even now, after being directly linked to BP’s criminal negligence with waivers and exemptions, and ignoring warnings about deepwater drilling from MMS even, Obama’s idea of helping bankrupt fishermen is through a special loan program. Perish the thought of BP giving these folks a grant.
No, now they have to apply for another bullshit loan program that you know the banks are going to latch onto and screw them over. Innocent people who lost everything in debt to bankers again. Bankers sure to squeeze them, take fees, delay, and deny.

The criminal acts and flagrant abuse of power by this guy is breathtaking.

He cannot, for example, “take over” the attempt to seal “the” leak, because he would lose “political capital” and worse, he imagines he would “own” the disaster.

Killing thousands if not millions of animals and ruining the ecosystem for years to come is a small price to pay for plausible deniability. Much better to have guys that will move on to the next job worry about the outcomes. Keeps the stress of worrying about the effect on those you love lower.

The nation should ensure he has no future.

Gotta disagree on your rant against the filibuster. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. In fact, when bad bills threaten to become law, the filibuster is often the last line of defense against them (though seldom used).

Constitutional framers clearly wanted bills to pass with a simple majority. There is zero doubt about it.

The idea that we are going to fix the nation with spending cuts is insane.

It makes about as much sense as fixing our global warming problem with more offshore drilling.

Is Obama actively trying to beat George Bush in a barn burning contest?

My sentiments exactly. Real Democrats increasingly have to run as independents.

That doesn’t mean it’s not unconstitutional. The practice of the filibuster is clearly contrary to the explicit wording in the Constitution that provides for majority rule in the Senate.

The practice of the filibuster is clearly contrary to the explicit wording in the Constitution that provides for majority rule in the Senate.

this is false. the practice of the filibuster via extended debate is not contrary to the constitution and the prractice of filibuster via extended debate does not even prevent majority rule under current Senate Rules and precedent.

some references here:

http://www.netrootsmass.net/selise/senate-filibuster-reference-list/

hopefully i’ll get a chance to write some summaries up soon.

Constitutional framers clearly wanted bills to pass with a simple majority. There is zero doubt about it.

even if that is true, filibuster by extended debate does not prevent passage by simple majority.